Late last night (CET), we reported on the story that the VLC project needed more developers for the Mac version of this popular video player, or else the Mac variant may disappear. Just about every website out there reported on this issue, but it turns out it all got a bit exaggerated (on the internet? Surely you jest...). We spoke to VLC developer Pierre d'Herbemont to clarify the issue, and they've also put up a wiki page about the so-called demise of the Mac version of VLC. He also detailed what, exactly, they meant by "Apple is blocking us".

Sure, you can get something else to run, but it'll suck in comparison.

Unless, of course, there *is* nothing else to run, because none of the relatively few available devs for your platform have yet to get around to reinventing that wheel. Or maybe the 'native' alternatives look real pretty, but suck on features...

If your and the GP's attitude is typical then no wonder VLC is having problems on the Mac side. Apparently, VLC would only be welcome on the Mac if it were a native OSX app.

Typical platform/DE elitism. No different than GTK/Qt fanboys refusing to use Qt/GTK apps just because they don't 'blend in'.

How ironic that 'that other platform' thats kicking all of our asses is controlled by a company that, for whatever reason (by accident or incompetence, you decide), never did get around to establishing a deep, consistent, universal look-act-n-feel (even this company's own apps don't all look/behave the same) and thus their platform never really fell into this elitism trap... and that is probably part of the reason *why* they are kicking our asses. They're too busy cranking out more apps to worry about how things are 'blending in'.

Me? If it works for me, and its better than the alternatives, I'll use it, no matter its origin.

Anyway, ya'll have fun reinventing all those wheels, I've got work to do...

Funnily enough I don't have any stress using clunky interfaces and mismatched GUIs. I get on and just get on and use something to get a job done.

As for applications something should not be rewritten if it does a job adequately. Recoding wastes time (which is better spent elsewhere) and puts a project in jeopardy.

Recoding stuff from scrach only makes sense when the current implementation is unworkable.

Customers simply don't care as long as something does the job for them and is delivered on time.

You can talk about nicely written code etc etc, but delivering something which works on time is what gets the bills paid. Sometimes you gotta bodge and hack to get stuff to work when time limits are tight.

"Sure, you can get something else to run, but it'll suck in comparison.

Unless, of course, there *is* nothing else to run, because none of the relatively few available devs for your platform have yet to get around to reinventing that wheel. Or maybe the 'native' alternatives look real pretty, but suck on features... "

Sure. And there's a difference between someone who prefers native app (while still being willing to put up with non-native if necessary), and someone who just automatically turns their nose up at any non-native app. The former is a reasonable position, the latter is the very definition of putting form over function.

That's how I read Bryan's post (as an example of the former sentiment), I don't really see where you're getting the platform elitism thing from.

How ironic that 'that other platform' thats kicking all of our asses is controlled by a company that, for whatever reason (by accident or incompetence, you decide), never did get around to establishing a deep, consistent, universal look-act-n-feel (even this company's own apps don't all look/behave the same) and thus their platform never really fell into this elitism trap...

That's a bit of a false dichotomy. For one, there's no shortage of GUI visual inconsistencies to be found on OS X (even among Apple's apps). And given that there are many more applications available for Windows, there's naturally going to be a greater variety of visual appearances.

and that is probably part of the reason *why* they are kicking our asses.

I doubt Microsoft's policies/philosophies on application visuals has much to do with it. If a lack of visual standards makes a platform a success, then Java GUI apps should have overtaken everyone else years ago.

And there's a difference between someone who prefers native app (while still being willing to put up with non-native if necessary), and someone who just automatically turns their nose up at any non-native app. The former is a reasonable position, the latter is the very definition of putting form over function.

That's how I read Bryan's post (as an example of the former sentiment),

I was kinda also responding to Kroc's post as well. As for Bryan's post, it was the Grandma joke at the end that made me think he was in the latter camp (where Grandma == a xplatform app), but I may have read it wrong.

I don't really see where you're getting the platform elitism thing from.

Oh I dunno, seems to be quite a bit of that here on OSN.

That's a bit of a false dichotomy. For one, there's no shortage of GUI visual inconsistencies to be found on OS X (even among Apple's apps).

Yea, I've heard that too (never used Apple myself), which just makes it harder for me to understand the typical fanboy responses about this issue. Sounds to me like Kroc would want to disagree with you on this, for example.

I doubt Microsoft's policies/philosophies on application visuals has much to do with it.

Agreed, thats why I said it was only 'probably part of' it. The main reason was that MS's was handed a defacto monopoly position early on due to IBM's lack of foresight at the time.

If a lack of visual standards makes a platform a success, then Java GUI apps should have overtaken everyone else years ago.

If it weren't for MS not wanting Java to succeed on their own (dominant) platform, and even now doing everything they can to kill it (.NET), then who knows, maybe Java *would* have done better?

Kinda hard to succeed when the 800lbs gorilla of your market is trying very hard to put you 6 feet under.